In my last English class for community college my teacher showed us Expelled: No intelligence allowed. We were supposed to do a review thingy on the argument it presented. I spent my entire paper destroying the movie/discovery institute. I don't hate many things but fark those "scientists"./csb yeah yeah

Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby? The Discovery Institute has their own peer-reviewed journal! It even has articles! Multiple articles! In fact, this journal has published seven hard hitting research articles since 2010! And some of the authors even show up multiple times, meaning that the journal was so good they decided that they wanted to come back and get published again!

Moreover, if you read the abstracts, you'll see that not only are there hard-hitting theoretical papers with titles like A Tetrahedral Representation of the Genetic Code Emphasizing Aspects of Symmetry, but one of the papers even involves an experiment! Obviously they are totally legitimate scienticians! Shame on you subby.

Martian_Astronomer:Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby? The Discovery Institute has their own peer-reviewed journal! It even has articles! Multiple articles! In fact, this journal has published seven hard hitting research articles since 2010! And some of the authors even show up multiple times, meaning that the journal was so good they decided that they wanted to come back and get published again!

Oh god, thanks for that. I didn't know they had their own journal.I'll probably chuckle all night

Martian_Astronomer:Why do you put "scientist" in quotations, subby? The Discovery Institute has their own peer-reviewed journal! It even has articles! Multiple articles! In fact, this journal has published seven hard hitting research articles since 2010! And some of the authors even show up multiple times, meaning that the journal was so good they decided that they wanted to come back and get published again!

That's taking tautaulogy to whole new levels of derp. Nice find.

wildcardjack:Their production qualities are higher than their scientific qualities.

Wanna take a tour of a real science lab with Thunderf00t? iPod in a Nuclear Reactor Beam

It was a real shame he couldn't do the live stream like he wanted to. Still, that was a pretty cool thing to watch. Big ups to the folks in charge fo the reactor for letting him take the camera right into the heart of things.

I think subby missed a word. Probably interview. As the interviewee appeared to completely confuse and mix up two different areas of research/techniques: phylogenetics and population genetics. Granted they are both sub areas of evolutionary biology, and they are related but still.

It's basically a perfect example of the Discovery Institute's approach to everything...

mjjt:Whole thing is crying out for a parody along the lines of the Monty Python sketch with John Cleese and his "machine that goes BING!"You don't win wars against these people with facts.

You do win battles by laughing at them.

The first thing that Dr Kramer came up with was that the penguin has a much smaller brain than the man. This postulate formed the fundamental basis of all his thinking and remained with him until his death. Now we've taken this theory one stage further. If we increase the size of the penguin until it is the same height as the man and then compare the relative brain size, we now find that the penguin's brain is still smaller. But, and this is the point, it is larger than it was.

Python's Frontiers of Medical Science skit fits pretty well with this "science."

I just spent several minutes staring at the background photo, trying to figure out how the lab confuses basic concepts.Couldn't figure out which concepts of laboratory design, safety, etc. were being violated...Didn't figure out until I came back that's not what subby meant....

It's basically a perfect example of the Discovery Institute's approach to everything...

Confused at an elementary level and outright liars.

Best description of the DI I can think of is a bunch of lawyers and fringe scientists desperately trying to change the definitions of biological research. Hell these asswipes won't even defend this crap under oath.

By what metric of mental gymnastics does she use to argue that a concerted intelligence was behind the dissolution of her uterine cavity on a monthly basis? I have yet to meet a single woman who sincerely enjoys this part about being a woman. What's her excuse?

//That's more addictively stupid than Conservapedia, looks like.//The true mark of quality content is when a periodical is given to you for free with no advertising. That's why I get all my world news from my cousin's Christmas family newsletter.

zerkalo:I walk by DI's downtown Seattle office every week. Perhaps I shall drop in to what they have in the way of lab space

A few years ago a friend and I entered the Discovery Institutes offices mostly as a goof, but we tried to apply for jobs. It was just a bunch of stupid offices and really anticlimactic actually. We were hoping to encounter William Dembski or someone notable so we could challenge their BS. No such luck.

THE GREAT NAME:Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

I think it's harder to think of any reasons why they would be remotely similar. They aren't even the same category.

Climatology is a scientific field that studies climate and weather patterns and conditions, especially over periods of time.

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory in the field of biology that postulates that life is too intricate to have occurred naturally so therefore must have had an intelligent agent involved in its creation readily acceptable as the Judeo-Christian God because, well, just because.

Ishkur:THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

I think it's harder to think of any reasons why they would be remotely similar. They aren't even the same category.

Climatology is a scientific field that studies climate and weather patterns and conditions, especially over periods of time.

Intelligent Design is a scientific theory in the field of biology that postulates that life is too intricate to have occurred naturally so therefore must have had an intelligent agent involved in its creation readily acceptable as the Judeo-Christian God because, well, just because.

THE GREAT NAME:Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Yeah, sure - intelligent design is a discredited theory about biology, while climatology is a widely-accepted theory about the atmospheric conditions of the planet. There's two reasons why they're different - 1) one's biology, the other is earth science and 2) one is wrong and the other is right

THE GREAT NAME:HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.

Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.

Invalid comparison on the face of it. One is a theory, the other is a field of study. You could ask why Darwinism is a sound scientific theory and Intelligent Design isn't. You could ask why climatology is a science but theology isn't. Trying to compare across groups is meaningless.

THE GREAT NAME:HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: HighZoolander: THE GREAT NAME: Quick question. Can anybody give me a reason why intelligent design is any different from climatology?

Hurr durr herr derr hurr herr der.

/There is it. You speak derp, right?

No I don't. I assume you gave me your reason in derp, but I must respectfully ask you to supply it in English.

Climatology is science, intelligent design is the opposite of science.

Give me one reason to believe climatology is a science.

I'm not convinced that you and reason get along, but here goes: Climatology inherently relies on the scientific method.

You may not like the hypotheses that are tested or the results that are generated, but it's silly to dispute whether the process is scientific. And if you can't see it as in any way different than jumping to the conclusion one starts with (i.e., god did it, a la intelligent design), then you really should read up on the subject.